Are MOBAs and Other Match Based Games MMOs?

Eldurian

Certain sites such as Superdata and the MMORPG games list have chosen to list games such as League of Legends, Overwatch, Defense of the Ancients and Hearthstone as MMORPGs.

A search for the definition of MMORPGs yields this:

"massively multiplayer online role-playing game: 
any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players."

"massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game: an internet-based computer game set in a virtual world, which can be played by many people at the same time, each of whom can interact with the others"

Do you believe games such as League of Legends fit the bill?

Eldurian

For some reason It turned the first option to text. I'm guessing a problem with the "-". Won't let me redo the poll so just hit "not really" and let us know if you think this question is ridiculous in the comments.

For the record I hit "not really" wishing to hit the top option as well.

cameltosis

Do we really need this again?

We already have the English comprehension answer (analysing the words massively multiplayer online) which tells us it is all about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment and that the number must be massively bigger than standard multiplayer. 

We've also had Raph Koster and Richard Garriott both come onto this site to specifically answer this question, and they both said it is about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment. 


What the actual number is isn't set in stone, it is simply relative to average multiplayer online games. I can't remember which one it was, but either Raph or Richard set it as 256 concurrent players in the same virtual environment when they first started using the phrase 20 years ago. Obviously since then, average multiplayer figures have jumped a lot, so it maybe around 500+ these days. My personal criteria is 1000+. 


But, whatever your number is, mobas etc are not MMOs. They don't fulfil any of the criteria for being massively multiplayer, hell, they are smaller than most multiplayer online games. 


This really should be case closed by now, even if some websites keep getting it wrong. 

EDIT: Link to article - http://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmorpgcoms-weekly-watercooler-whats-in-an-acronym-the-mmo-definition-debate-1000011697

waynejr2

Eldurian said:

Certain sites such as Superdata and the MMORPG games list have chosen to list games such as League of Legends, Overwatch, Defense of the Ancients and Hearthstone as MMORPGs.

A search for the definition of MMORPGs yields this:

"massively multiplayer online role-playing game: 
any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players."

"massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game: an internet-based computer game set in a virtual world, which can be played by many people at the same time, each of whom can interact with the others"

Do you believe games such as League of Legends fit the bill?

Yes the are.   The problem with you people is you shorten mmoRPG to mmo and think all mmo means mmoRPGS.   The problem is dropping the RPG.

Imagine red apples are mmoRPG.  And Green apples are MOBAs.  You think all apples are mmoRPGS.  That is poor thinking.

Eldurian

cameltosis said:

We've also had Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both come onto this site to specifically answer this question, and they both said it is about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment. 

Interesting. You wouldn't be able to link to those posts would you?

Slapshot1188

Personally I think they are Open World PvP Massively Mulltiplayer Online Strategic Battle Arena Role Playing Games

Eldurian

@waynejr2

Well the question specifically asks about MMORPGs but they aren't MMO's either:

"Define MMO"

Even MMO still has the massively qualifier. It drops the need to be an RPG but it doesn't drop the need to be massive.

Horusra

We can debate MMO, but what makes them RPG's?

Nilden

MOBA - multiplayer online battle arena

MMOBA - massively multiplayer online battle arena

See the difference?

Listing MOBAs as MMOs just shows that they have no idea what a MMO is. It's par for the course now, superdata lists hearthstone a 2 player card game as a MMO. This site lists single player games.

It's a joke and makes the term meaningless because they use it wrong. If 10 people is a MMO every multiplayer game is a MMO, it's just idiocy.

Eldurian

Horusra said:

We can debate MMO, but what makes them RPG's?

Now THAT is a question that draws actual debate.

The first result has this to say about it:

"story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world"

The second appears to contain no qualifiers specific to RPGs.

Here is an article on RPGs

I'd say the consistent element is "taking on the role of your character" but that's an idea somewhat open to interpretation. For instance, don't you take on the role of "Master Chief" in Halo or a "Planeswalker" in MTG?

I think it has to do with how strongly the game is set up to truly immerse you in the role of your character. There is little debating that D&D really tried to get you to step into the shoes of your character and experience things through your characters eyes to the greatest degree you can with pen, paper, and simple visual aides. 

Now if we're going to say "story driven" is also a qualifier that also raises the question. What kind of story? The story the developers script for you or the story you create through your actions? 

I am happy to see that the idea of level/stat progression are notably absent from these results though.

Loke666

They are not massive and not RPGs so I don't see what there is to debate. 

A "massive" game should have more players in a zone at the same time then a regular FPS game or all multiplayer would be MMOs.

As for roleplaying there is no real progression from game to game, you don't really interact with anyone besides combat and you don't follow or create any kind of story.

That leaves you with "Multiplayer online".

ConstantineMerus

If you consider these games as mmorpgs then you can consider all things on a computer as mmorpgs. 

Eldurian

ConstantineMerus said:

If you consider these games as mmorpgs then you can consider all things on a computer as mmorpgs. 

Believe me I don't. I started this topic when someone specifically used the titles in the poll to tell me western MMORPGs are actually rising in popularity. 

Edit: It is an interesting race though. "I like turtles" and "Absolutely" are neck and neck. Who will win? Only time can tell.

Loke666

Eldurian said:

Believe me I don't. I started this topic when someone specifically used the titles in the poll to tell me western MMORPGs are actually rising in popularity. 

Edit: It is an interesting race though. "I like turtles" and "Absolutely" are neck and neck. Who will win? Only time can tell.

Sadly, more and more people do consider any multiplayer game a MMO and 5 years from now that will probably be what most people think.

Words change meaning and maybe we instead need to get a new word for "MMORPG". Actually finding MMOs on places like Steam are already hard since they list so many none MMOs.

Something like the 4X name for strategy games like Heroes and Age of Wonders, those games are a breeze to find because of that.

Eldurian

The issue with just handing over the term MMOs to games like MOBAs is that they already should be separated by the "Massively" qualifier. That's why MOBA is such a great qualifier. If we wanted a term MMOBA it would apply to games like Planetside 2 instead of LoL.

I think the fact MMOs are dying is what perverted the language though. This is purely speculative but here is what I am guessing happened.

1. MMORPG.com noticed their MMO list shrinking and wanted more games to talk about to generate more site hits.
2. MMORPG.com includes games such a LoL and SMITE into their MMOs list.
3. Superdata regards MMORPG.com as an authority on the subject and decides to include MOBAs into their MMORPG data.
4. Superdata does good research and so other sites quote Superdata in their articles.

That's the only real explanation I can give when there are articles willing to call these games MMOs but they don't fit any kind of definition for MMO and the vast majority of gamers reject them as MMOs.

Phry

No, MMO's and MOBA's are two completely different things, and the answer is pretty much in the meaning of the acronyms themselves, red is not blue, and multiplayer is not the same as massively multiplayer.

Scorchien

NO

Iselin

That "massively multiplayer" thing? Some want that to go away because they sound silly when they try to ignore it. It's very inconvenient.

If we were talking about a massively multiplayer marching band would people think that a marching quartet or octet would qualify?

rojoArcueid

they have a lobby, they are multiplayer, and they take place in an arena. That's it. Similar to Call of Duty, Battlefield, and the sea of F2P shooters out there.

Eldurian

I think the real take away here is only 10% of this site likes turtles. What is your beef with turtles?

ZionBane

cameltosis said:

Do we really need this again?

We already have the English comprehension answer (analysing the words massively multiplayer online) which tells us it is all about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment and that the number must be massively bigger than standard multiplayer. 

We've also had Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both come onto this site to specifically answer this question, and they both said it is about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment. 


What the actual number is isn't set in stone, it is simply relative to average multiplayer online games. I can't remember which one it was, but either Raph or Richard set it as 256 concurrent players in the same virtual environment when they first started using the phrase 20 years ago. Obviously since then, average multiplayer figures have jumped a lot, so it maybe around 500+ these days. My personal criteria is 1000+. 


But, whatever your number is, mobas etc are not MMOs. They don't fulfil any of the criteria for being massively multiplayer, hell, they are smaller than most multiplayer online games. 


This really should be case closed by now, even if some websites keep getting it wrong. 

Yah we need this again, because Eldurian, is butthurt that his beliefs don't match reality, which happened on this topic, (by me , none the less) an as opposed to just accepting that he is wrong, he is now polling the very people that he called ignorant, toxic, and stupid.. for some form of validation.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am laughing my ass off over this display.

cameltosis

Eldurian said:

cameltosis said:

We've also had Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both come onto this site to specifically answer this question, and they both said it is about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment. 

Interesting. You wouldn't be able to link to those posts would you?

http://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmorpgcoms-weekly-watercooler-whats-in-an-acronym-the-mmo-definition-debate-1000011697

I was wrong, it was Richard Garriott and not Bartle that was questioned. 

Garriott's explanation of the definition is in the article itself, Raph Koster joins in during the comments (20 or 30 comments in)

cameltosis

ZionBane said:

cameltosis said:

Do we really need this again?

We already have the English comprehension answer (analysing the words massively multiplayer online) which tells us it is all about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment and that the number must be massively bigger than standard multiplayer. 

We've also had Raph Koster and Richard Bartle both come onto this site to specifically answer this question, and they both said it is about the number of concurrent players within the same virtual environment. 


What the actual number is isn't set in stone, it is simply relative to average multiplayer online games. I can't remember which one it was, but either Raph or Richard set it as 256 concurrent players in the same virtual environment when they first started using the phrase 20 years ago. Obviously since then, average multiplayer figures have jumped a lot, so it maybe around 500+ these days. My personal criteria is 1000+. 


But, whatever your number is, mobas etc are not MMOs. They don't fulfil any of the criteria for being massively multiplayer, hell, they are smaller than most multiplayer online games. 


This really should be case closed by now, even if some websites keep getting it wrong. 

Yah we need this again, because Eldurian, is butthurt that his beliefs don't match reality, which happened on this topic, (by me , none the less) an as opposed to just accepting that he is wrong, he is now polling the very people that he called ignorant, toxic, and stupid.. for some form of validation.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am laughing my ass off over this display.

I'm part of that other thread and I'm on Eldurian's side there, but when debating open world pvp there is a lot of room for interpretation as to the specifics and it seems to boil down to what percentage of the world can be used for pvping (which, in my opinion, makes it an arbitrary line in the sand and thus invalidates the debate). 

But, you think 3v3 arena games are somehow massively multiplayer. 


If you are able to explain to me how 6 people is massively bigger than your average online multiplayer game (where 128 people is common) then I'll switch sides. But, I think you'll have a very hard time convincing me that 6 is bigger than 128....

jmcdermottuk

It doesn't really matter if the RPG is after MMO or not, MMO means massively multiplayer, so it has to be exponentially bigger then a standard multiplayer game to be MMO.

Seeing as most MOBA's are 5v5 they hardly meet the "Massively" criteria. Even games like World of Tanks, which claims to be a tank MMO is only 15 v 15, a number we've had since the 90's in games like Half Life multiplayer or Battlefield, which has always been considered Multiplayer.

MOBA's are not Massively Multiplayer, therefore they are not MMO's. The only reason Superdata include games like DOTA or LoL in their figures is because they are free to play, cash shop, online games and they generate a lot of money. In that respect they are similar to every other free to play game, in that they make money through cash shops, as some MMO's do.

Really they should change the name of their articles from Top 10 MMO's to Top 10 F2P Games. The confusion comes from mixing different game genres that use a similar cash model and then calling it an MMO list. Then they add to the confusion by sticking WoW in there because it still makes a fuck ton of money through subs.

Essentially this is all because the people at Superdata are a bunch of dickheads who don't know their arse from their elbow.

Loke666

cameltosis said:

I'm part of that other thread and I'm on Eldurian's side there, but when debating open world pvp there is a lot of room for interpretation as to the specifics and it seems to boil down to what percentage of the world can be used for pvping (which, in my opinion, makes it an arbitrary line in the sand and thus invalidates the debate). 

But, you think 3v3 arena games are somehow massively multiplayer. 


If you are able to explain to me how 6 people is massively bigger than your average online multiplayer game (where 128 people is common) then I'll switch sides. But, I think you'll have a very hard time convincing me that 6 is bigger than 128....

"Common" is probably a bit too much, the majority of FPS games still have 32  or 64 as max but your argument is good anyways.

Mobas are not MMORPGs, just like Diablo ain't a MMO. A lobby does not make a game massive or the facebook games would be MMOs.

Aeander

No. The "massively" part is critically important in defining MMOs.